Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

[craig]

It's also amusing that nobody is supposed to write in the Koran, but if they do or it somehow gets defaced/marred/ruined, the only acceptable solution is to burn the book.

Bad example........

People are outraged when members of other countries/ religions burn the stars and stripes...not the thing to do...defaming the USA etc...

however, when the flag is beyond its use by date or been damaged or gawd forbid touches the ground, the only way it can be destroyed legally is to be burned.........

see what i mean about a bad point.

PS i dont see how the perswon had the right to attack the guy in the first place...not american...why not do the normal thing and sue him............lawyers need to eat.....

[chbare]

First, nearly every "group" of people are frequently ridiculed. For example, shows like South Park and the Family Guy frequently poke fun at mentally and physically challenged people. One issue that we will always face in this country is how far do we allow our freedoms to go? At some point, a decision has to be made on what types of expression can be allowed. This definition is by no means static and is in constant flux. Often, the rational for many decisions are based on flawed logic or may even be arbitrary I remember homosexual expression was a crime when I first joined the military. In fact, I still remember the Mr. SAM (statements, acts, marriages) assessment for people who were potentially homosexual from PLDC (primary leadership development course). In my lifetime, this has changed significantly and for the better IMHO.

Next, I've read the story and have even seen a few videos and news casts regarding the situation at hand and I cannot make definitive sense of it. There are allot of words and allot of "he said she said" interpretations going on here. I cannot say what occurred definitively. However, the audio that I have heard is rather disturbing regarding the judges statements. Again, I don't have entire conversation or context and it would be myopic to make a stand here, especially since we have such heated discussion over something so ill defined. I do think the judge had a very clear interpretation of the law and the situation and I am not sure that is consistent with what many other people in his shoes would conclude. We will see how this ultimately pans out.

Additionally, it seems that we are injecting assumptions or extra details into the situation to make it fit with our personal view of the situation. We often warn people against doing this when they take an all important exam but seemed to miss the mark in this situation. If the kid was simply walking in a parade wearing a Zombie Muhammad costume then an unprovoked attack is probably not kosher. However, if the kid went out provoking people, then filmed the reaction, we can debate the subsequent behaviour. With that, we have to inject data into this situation that may or may not be valid.

Edited February 27, 2012 by chbare

[Asysin2leads]

I still say that the Westboro Baptist Church is the low water mark. I would say 98% of the Western world would like to respond to them the same way this man responded to Zombie Muhammed. The laws are very clear that we cannot. The belief in freedom of speech cannot just be applied when its something you agree with. The true test of whether you believe in free speech protections is if you defend it when its something you find reprehensible.

The real problem is these low-level shit kicking county judges who run their little fiefdoms without fear of consequence. Another judge in Pennsylvania went to jail for purposely sentencing children to long stretches at juvenile facilities because he was getting kick backs. A judge is there to interpret and apply legislative code and statute. Any attempts to proselytize, preach, or pull at Judge Judy on anyone should be met with the swift removal of the judge and replacement with someone more objective. That's why I do an eye-roll any time Glenn Beck or his ilk rally against the federal government. The biggest threat to our personal freedoms isn't the federal government, its petty little men and women in powerful positions appointed in our local neighborhoods.

[DwayneEMTP]

Meh, no longer interested. The Nazis were called....

As has become your habit lately whenever you can't easily win an argument...Some bullshit excuse to quite.

You need to try and spend more time with folks that disagree with you. You've seem to have lost your ability to debate when really challenged instead of just stepping up to the pop flies.

Being an spending so much time around employees seems to be making you delicate. It's a job hazard, I know.

Edit: I just occurs to me, and cracks me up a bit to notice that you're the only one that's mentioned the Nazis.

[akflightmedic]

Nope, this is me exercising exactly what I stated...flip the channel.

I lose, you win...well done Dwayne.

I bow out to the Grand Master....

[DwayneEMTP]

Nope, this is me exercising exactly what I stated...flip the channel.

I lose, you win...well done Dwayne.

I bow out to the Grand Master....

Man...You're getting to be a real baby. Passive aggressive doesn't suit you Brother.

[DFIB]

Dwayne,

On an emotional level I have to agree with you. Would I want to beat a guy that emotionally hurt my children? Heck yea, I would want to run him over with a bus! Would i do it? I don't know. Up until now I have been able to resist my emotions, but someday I may not.

By resisting my emotions we are forced to find alternate ways to defend the kiddos. It is very heart wrenching because we almost feel we are no longer men or good fathers.The flip side is that the kids get to learn that the "old man" is willing to take the hard road to make things right.

I know your son cannot defend himself which makes you scenario particularly gut wrenching and horrible. I also understand that I cannot comprehend the depth of emotion that compels you to be his protector. But I believe there are other ways than beating the crap out of some dude that is seriously asking for it.

If the rule of conduct is defined by our emotions and the expression thereof we will descend into a primitive chaos. I think rule of law is much more appropriate.

I guess I am saying that I understand but would hope I would be able to find another way.

The judge did the wrong thing because he decided that according to his own feelings and emotions the zombie Muhammad was the worse offender. As a judge he has to follow the law not his emotions so he failed in his commission.

Edited February 28, 2012 by DFIB

[paramedicmike]

This article puts a different spin on it. This makes it sound like it was a "he said, he said" argument and there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against the Muslim man. Only after the charges were dismissed, based on the lack of evidence, was religion brought up. That probably changes the context a bit. Most won't see it that way, though, I'm sure.

[Asysin2leads]

Here's the judges response to the whole incident.

This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).

I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).

He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).

He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.

When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;

In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.

A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.

[HERBIE1]

Bad example........

People are outraged when members of other countries/ religions burn the stars and stripes...not the thing to do...defaming the USA etc...

however, when the flag is beyond its use by date or been damaged or gawd forbid touches the ground, the only way it can be destroyed legally is to be burned.........

see what i mean about a bad point.

PS i dont see how the perswon had the right to attack the guy in the first place...not american...why not do the normal thing and sue him............lawyers need to eat.....

I was making the point that people are dying because someone burned the Koran- by accident. Problem is, the REASON they burned it was because it was now contraband ,not just a holy book- they were being used as carriers of extremist messages. To me, they can get as pissed off as they like-it's no different than someone fashioning a prison shank. One of the acceptable methods of disposing a Koran- at least according to the Saudis- is indeed to burn it.

Clearly the officials had every right to remove the Korans, and we can quibble about how they should be disposed of, but for the president of the USA to personally apologize for this is patently absurd. Have the commander of the base involved issue an apology, but that is as far as it should go. It reminds me of last year when the POTUS actually stepped in and called that lunatic in Florida to plead for him not to burn the Koran. REALLY? Since when does it fall on the POTUS to adopt Islam as the religion he deems worthy of defending at all costs?

Further- the reaction to someone burning a flag may be severely pissed off Americans, but does not include rioting, murders, and executions, nor do I see the leaders of foreign countries apologizing for the actions of their extremists who burn our national symbol.